From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[log in to unmask]> > Eh? Under what definition of polysynthesis is there any doubt that > Georgian verbs are polysynthetic? I mean, verbs inflect for the > person and number of the subject, direct object, indirect object, for > tense, various kinds of aspect, mood, a number of valence properties, > "version", etc. I should've said that Georgian is polysynthetic, but not incorporating. Or not as polysynthetic as Inuktitut or Cherokee. I read something about different types of polysynthesis, that some languages have "optional polysynthesis" (French might fall in this category). German also has a level of incorporation, but not polypersonalism. > It's not, actually. It's a split-S system, as it has two classes of > intransitive verbs, one mostly for unaccusatives that patterns like > the notional direct object of first conjugation transitive verbs, and > one for unergatives that patterns like the notional subject of 1st > conjugation transitives. The mixing you're thinking about concerns > the behavior of precisely these transitives in the present series. > (This is one area of the language I am currently researching.) That's what's called 'version' right? I'm reading the online grammar at http://www.armazi.com/georgian and it's confusing me. Kartvelian languages just might have the most complicated verb grammar. But I've read Ket has a scary verb system too. Sergei Starostin has a description of it in Russian at http://starling.rinet.ru/index2.htm, but you need to install his font package to view the phonetic symbols.